Florida man's Ferrari visit: Court upholds estranged wife's protection order

Three earlier incidents of physical violence provided grounds for the order. (Representational AI image)A Florida appeals court has upheld a domestic violence protection order against a husband who visited his estranged wife's condo asking about his Ferrari. The November 6 ruling involved Gerald Buchheit and his wife, Cara Siciliano, who were going through a divorce. The court found that a video of the December 2024 visit did not show domestic violence. However, it upheld the protection order because Siciliano had described three earlier incidents in which Buchheit allegedly physically assaulted her.According to case details available on Justia, the couple had been separated since 2022. Buchheit lived in Buffalo, New York, while Siciliano lived in Fort Myers, Florida. In December 2024, he went to her condo without informing her in advance. He said he wanted to collect his mail, leave some gifts he had bought in Italy and ask about his Ferrari, which he could not find in the garage.Siciliano said Buchheit arrived at around 7 am while she and her 17-year-old daughter were at home. She alleged that he entered her bedroom, shouted at her and recorded her while demanding to know where his Ferrari was. She also claimed that he followed her around the condo and threatened to return whenever he wanted.Siciliano subsequently approached the court for protection, saying she feared for her safety. Buchheit denied her allegations and argued that the video of the visit showed that he had not threatened or chased her.The trial court granted Siciliano's request after hearing about the couple's earlier history. Buchheit challenged the decision, but the Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida upheld the protection order.What happened during the Ferrari argument?During the hearing, both Buchheit and Siciliano gave different accounts of the visit. Buchheit said he had gone to the condo to collect his mail and leave gifts for his wife. He also wanted to know where his Ferrari was.He denied kicking open her bedroom door, seeing her naked or chasing her through the condo. He said Siciliano started shouting at him to leave. He also explained that he recorded the interaction because he did not want to be falsely accused of wrongdoing.The court examined the 62-second video of the visit. It showed Buchheit standing outside a closed door and calmly asking, "where's the Ferrari?" Siciliano's daughter responded, "and why are you here?" Buchheit replied, "I bought this house. That's why I'm here."The recording then showed Siciliano standing in the living room in a bathrobe, on the other side of a large couch. She asked him to leave while dialling on her phone.Buchheit slowly walked towards her bedroom. Siciliano closed the bedroom door as he approached. He appeared to open it slightly, but she shut it again. He then walked towards the condo's exit, and the video ended.The appeals court said the recording did not show Buchheit shouting, chasing Siciliano, behaving aggressively or making threats. It agreed that the December 2024 visit alone could not justify the final protection order. However, the court also considered Siciliano's testimony about earlier incidents of physical violence.Wife described three earlier assaultsSiciliano told the court about four incidents dating from 2016 to 2023. She said Buchheit had slammed her into a bedroom door in January 2023, splitting it in half. She said this happened after she had undergone breast cancer surgery.Buchheit objected to this incident because it had not been mentioned in her original petition. The appeals court agreed that the trial court should not have considered it because he had not been given prior notice of the allegation.However, Siciliano also described three other incidents that Buchheit did not object to during the hearing. She said that in June 2016, he shattered a wine glass and cut the back of her leg. In March 2020, she alleged that he choked her while drunk, attacked her and smashed her phone, leaving bruises on her arm. In February 2022, she said he punched her repeatedly in the back at Mar-a-Lago.Buchheit disputed these accounts. He said the wine glass had fallen and caused the cut. He claimed that the bruises in 2020 happened while he was trying to stop Siciliano from hitting him. He also denied the alleged assault at Mar-a-Lago.Siciliano said she had not contacted the police or sought protection after these incidents. She explained that Buchheit had several residences, moved around frequently and had filed for divorce. Although they jointly owned the Fort Myers condo, he did not live there or keep his belongings there.She also told the court that his behaviour had worsened after he was involved in a plane crash earlier in 2024. According to her, he had started drinking more frequently. She said all the earlier incidents of violence had happened when he was drinking.Court upheld the protection orderThe appeals court said the three earlier incidents were enough to support the protection order. Under Florida law, a person can obtain a final domestic violence injunction if they have been a victim of domestic violence or have reasonable grounds to fear further violence.The court said the law does not set a time limit on how far back judges can consider incidents of domestic violence. It also requires courts to examine the history between the two people, including physical abuse and threats, while assessing the risk of future violence.The judges said the earlier incidents showed that Siciliano had been a victim of domestic violence. They also considered her fear following Buchheit's unannounced visit.She had told the court that he was drinking more after the plane crash, that alcohol had been linked to his earlier violence and that the couple were going through a divorce. The court said these circumstances helped explain her fear when he appeared at her home without warning.Buchheit had argued that the earlier incidents were too old to justify a new protection order. However, he raised this argument for the first time in his motion for rehearing, after the trial court had already issued its decision. The appeals court said he had raised the issue too late and could not challenge it at this stage.